D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Hussar]

The DM describing a new area for the first time: exploration all the way. The PCs/players are learning something new about the world.
The DM describing the same area for the third time to the same PCs: not exploration. They're not learning anything new.

As I've been kinda harping on. I think we need to differentiate Exploration from Exploration Challenges. What you are describing - seeing a new area- is exploration but, there's no real challenge there. The DM narrates that's about the end of it. Now, to be clear, I'm only talking about the "DM describing a new area" part of things. That part there's no real challenge. Now, there very well might be a challenge contained in the area described. But, that's somewhat of a separate thing.

Kinda like if I describe a mountain as this big, pretty thing trees and whatnot, that's fine. There's no challenge there. But the avalanche that might be triggered if you're too loud is an exploration challenge. And it's that second part that I really think we should focus on since keeping everything under one general umbrella doesn't seem to help move the conversation forward.

 

[Lyxen]

Sorry, but IMO the player here is doing it absolutely right. Kudos to that player!

Actually, I would say kudos to both the player and the DM at this stage. It's good that the player describes exactly what he is doing. And it was good also for the DM to call a timeout and to explain his perspectives about running the game, which in turn led to greater understanding and speedier play without leaving problems in the air.

Because I can totally understand where both are coming from. I've had DMs who enjoyed catching players at little things like that, and therefore players who were trained to play with these DMs where attention was always necessary. It was not a case of bad DMing, or bad playing, but something for which there are better solutions for speedier and ni particular more trusting play.

And honestly, on this point, 5e has done some good with the passives. It has taken some time, but our players don't have problem now with accepting that the DM is not there to screw them over, and that asking for perception/insight check every minute is not going to give them more information than what the DM will provide, on his own, when describing a situation and taking into account the passive capabilities of the PCs. And that it would only slow down play.

it does not prevent, of course, players from taking special actions (hard to do with insight, but perception can be helped by looking specifically at / for something, or relayed by investigation), but it's now used with the proper frequency and for the right reason, not for simple paranoia.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry, but IMO the player here is doing it absolutely right. Kudos to that player!

And if you're not asking for specifics or details on how the PCs are doing the broad-brush actions they're declaring you're leaving yourself wide open to the age-old argument of "But I never said I was doing [whatever]". Unless, of course, you're never putting any unforeseen challenges in their path and-or are telegraphing everything, which IMO is way more hand-holding than I'd ever want to play under.

No, this is a playstyle difference. I interpret actions in the sense of "What would be plausible for an adventurer in that situation?" and always interpret in favor of the player. So, the whole "gotcha" thing just never comes up.

Now, the players did have to say that he was watching behind. Fair enough. Or, even just, "I'm watching around" would probably be good enough for me. IOW, he has told me that he is looking for approaching enemies and he is on guard. That's all I need. That's all that's actually needed. The whole "Mother May I" thing of older editions is just not the way I play anymore.

"I search the room" will ALWAYS result in the players finding (presuming they are capable of finding, and presuming there is no time pressure) every single hidden thing in that room. No roll necessary. It's the way 3e was intended, and 4e and 5e as well. You "Take 20" to use the 3e term for it, and you succeed. End of story.

So, you can call it hand holding all you like. I call it getting the game moving and not bogging down in mindless minutia that 99% of the time doesn't matter.

Heck, I treat equipment lists this way too. Is it plausible for your character to be carrying that? Yes? Ok, you have it. I don't care and I'm certainly never, ever going to check what's on your character sheet. I don't play with people that I need to double check their character sheets. If they say they have it, and it's entirely plausible that they do, then, I could not care less if they wrote it down or not.

Like I said WAYYYY back before this thread was necro'd. I checked out of the exploration pillar many, many years ago and I haven't really looked back since.

 

[Lanefan]

As I've been kinda harping on. I think we need to differentiate Exploration from Exploration Challenges. What you are describing - seeing a new area- is exploration but, there's no real challenge there. The DM narrates that's about the end of it. Now, to be clear, I'm only talking about the "DM describing a new area" part of things. That part there's no real challenge. Now, there very well might be a challenge contained in the area described. But, that's somewhat of a separate thing.

Kinda like if I describe a mountain as this big, pretty thing trees and whatnot, that's fine. There's no challenge there. But the avalanche that might be triggered if you're too loud is an exploration challenge. And it's that second part that I really think we should focus on since keeping everything under one general umbrella doesn't seem to help move the conversation forward.

Thing is, it's not all about challenges.

A lot of the game involves non-challenging moments and activities - examples: talking to shopkeepers, travelling through previously-unseen parts of a safe realm, banter and discussion with other PCs, etc. - yet these still nicely fall under the pillars as currently defined (in order: social, exploration, and social).

To say something's not in a pillar unless it's presenting a capital-c Challenge seems...odd, somehow. And I wonder if that's causing some of the disconnect here: you (and maybe a few others) are trying to tie everything to challenges, where I (and, I think, some others) are not.

And this is relevant, in that the non-challenging portion of Exploration pillar activities will be higher than in the other two. Combat, by comparison, will have a very low non-challenge portion; with Social somewhere in between and more highly variable by table.

 

[Lanefan]

No, this is a playstyle difference. I interpret actions in the sense of "What would be plausible for an adventurer in that situation?" and always interpret in favor of the player. So, the whole "gotcha" thing just never comes up.

Now, the players did have to say that he was watching behind. Fair enough. Or, even just, "I'm watching around" would probably be good enough for me. IOW, he has told me that he is looking for approaching enemies and he is on guard. That's all I need. That's all that's actually needed. The whole "Mother May I" thing of older editions is just not the way I play anymore.

"I search the room" will ALWAYS result in the players finding (presuming they are capable of finding, and presuming there is no time pressure) every single hidden thing in that room. No roll necessary. It's the way 3e was intended, and 4e and 5e as well. You "Take 20" to use the 3e term for it, and you succeed. End of story.

Take-20 might be the single worst mechanic any edition of D&D has ever had....and given some of the competition, that's saying something. That 4e and 5e followed suit is a sad commentary on their designers' inability to learn from a mistake.

It's complete garbage, turning every non-pressure task into a non-randomized and binary succeed-fail situation when in reality there would always be a chance of failure even with no pressure being applied. And - in keeping with many other in-game elements that you among others have raised - it serves to render actual exploration redundant in favour of broad-brush single-declaration skip-the-details resolution.

So, you can call it hand holding all you like. I call it getting the game moving and not bogging down in mindless minutia that 99% of the time doesn't matter.

Heck, I treat equipment lists this way too. Is it plausible for your character to be carrying that? Yes? Ok, you have it. I don't care and I'm certainly never, ever going to check what's on your character sheet. I don't play with people that I need to double check their character sheets. If they say they have it, and it's entirely plausible that they do, then, I could not care less if they wrote it down or not.

So you're willing to let your players cheat, then. OK - I guess if it works for you...

Like I said WAYYYY back before this thread was necro'd. I checked out of the exploration pillar many, many years ago and I haven't really looked back since.

Where to me exploration is most of the reason to play the damn game.

 

[Lyxen]

Take-20 might be the single worst mechanic any edition of D&D has ever had....and given some of the competition, that's saying something. That 4e and 5e followed suit is a sad commentary on their designers' inability to learn from a mistake.

Or it might be that it's actually a good mechanic that speeds up play a lot and take some unnecessary hassle out of skills resolution. That's my take on it, even though 4e and 5e did not follow suit (I'm sure about 5e and pretty sure about 4e). But 5e has even better, automatic success or failure.

It's complete garbage, turning every non-pressure task into a non-randomized and binary succeed-fail situation when in reality there would always be a chance of failure even with no pressure being applied.

Why ? Just for the pleasure of rolling the dice ? Of frustrating the players ? It's not a roll-playing game.

And - in keeping with many other in-game elements that you among others have raised - it serves to render actual exploration redundant in favour of broad-brush single-declaration skip-the-details resolution.

Or it serves to make exploration story-driven rather than more random. Again, YCMV and to each his own, I can understand both ways of wanting to play the game.

So you're willing to let your players cheat, then. OK - I guess if it works for you...

It works for a lot of us, you know, it's about role-playing, the character might have thought about bringing something that the player did not know about. I don't have to be a wizard to play one, which is a good thing. And I have better things to do than to list extra pairs of socks on my character sheet, for example.

Again, it's a question of style of play, both are valid, calling one "cheating" is not going to make the discussion go better.

Where to me exploration is most of the reason to play the damn game.

And this is probably one of the reasons for the different opinions above, I enjoy exploration, but like roleplaying even more in general.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Hey, I said I would go through how I do it. There you go.

You did say that, but we are already in the situation exactly like has been commented on a dozen times now. Removing Ritual MAgic and making Leomund's Tent and changing the text of Goodberry makes all of those things no longer problems. So you have homebrewed solutions by greatly nerfing the party's abilities.

But you are removing a major design element, and a feat, by removing all ritual casting, and if you have to remove that much and then alter two other spells, then it is quite clear that the rules as written do not allow for whatever it is that will come next.

I am still interested in seeing part 3, maybe there will be something useful to glean, but like many others you've already conceded that homebrewing is an essential part of running the exploration section of the game, far beyond what the other two pillars require of the DM.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is the biggest key. You're not going to screw over your players intentionally because they didn't specify something they're doing. But I think there's a spectrum.

I can say "I watch our backs" and the implication is that as long as the creature is visible and within theoretical sight range, it will be spotted by the player. This doesn't mean, though, that once the player spots whatever is sneaking up on them that they will engage it with hostile intent, especially if the monster is a few pegs above their tier.

Its about interpreting what the player says vs making choices for the player. But really, either way, its fine so long as the DM isn't intentionally attempting to make a situation worse for the player.

There is certainly a spectrum, but many times I have heard or seen people who are ambushed with no warning because "you didn't check the ceiling". Entire fields of stalactites have been missed by a party because they never said they were looking up, even though your vision isn't a flat field.

And, other than an invisible monster in an immaculately clean hallway, there isn't any monster I can think of that would at least get a perception check if it was following the party. Which again, I think you are in agreement with, but we have to acknowledge the spectrum, and that isn't always the case.

In fact, the only monsters I can think of in 5e that you could argue don't get perception to spot them are the "Indistinguishable" monsters like animated armor and ropers. But, I would caution using such monsters very very sparingly in this manner. Because a monster you had no way of detecting doesn't always increase tension, many times it increases frustration, because the player's had no chance to do anything except get caught off-guard.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I can do you one better and point you to the source itself: https://giffyglyph.com/darkerdungeons/grimoire/4.0.0/en/trials.html

In fact for those looking for more options, there’s a ton of good stuff in Darker Dungeons.

Thank you kindly

 

[Lanefan]

Or it might be that it's actually a good mechanic that speeds up play a lot and take some unnecessary hassle out of skills resolution. That's my take on it, even though 4e and 5e did not follow suit (I'm sure about 5e and pretty sure about 4e). But 5e has even better, automatic success or failure.

It's the "automatic" part that bothers me, as so many things aren't automatic at all.

Why ? Just for the pleasure of rolling the dice ? Of frustrating the players ?

Realism, mostly. Using the "search the room" example, if I hide somethine really well in a room - say, in a very-hard-to-detect secret compartment in the floor - and I send 100 different people (or groups) in to search for it, even if they have all day the odds of all 100 groups coming out having found it are negligible. Ideally, if my hiding job is good enough none of them find it; but it's inevitable some will just by fluke and some others will by either skill or deduction or whatever.

This is what I want the game to reflect: that even when there's no pressure you can still blow it; and that even if something's normally beyond one's capability to find sometimes you'll find it anyway by sheer luck. Hence, a roll (ONE roll, no rerolls) determines the best you'll do in this situation, instead of Take-20.

It's not a roll-playing game.

On this I agree. That said, Take-20 is still a "roll" in my view even though a die isn't actually rolled, just like an intentional walk in baseball is still a walk except without the four pitches being thrown.

Or it serves to make exploration story-driven rather than more random. Again, YCMV and to each his own, I can understand both ways of wanting to play the game.

I'm not after story-driven, though, in that sense; nor am I all that concerned about speeding up play by skipping over details (some here seem to want to sacrifice half the game on the altar of speed). I'd rather see the story emerge from the detailed run of play.

It works for a lot of us, you know, it's about role-playing, the character might have thought about bringing something that the player did not know about. I don't have to be a wizard to play one, which is a good thing. And I have better things to do than to list extra pairs of socks on my character sheet, for example.

Problem is, this allows players to meta-game their characters into always just happening to have exactly what they need when they need it; which means that anyone who bothers to put the forethought into equipping their character properly ahead of time is wasting their time, and also means some challenges might be easier to overcome than they should be - or even outright negated.

Never mind that even mundane gear costs money, and particularly at low levels not every character can afford a complete kit.

Yes it's about role-playing - we agree there! But sometimes that role-playing is going to include "Damn, I forgot to bring that." or "Damn, I wanted to pick one of those up last time in town but couldn't afford it!"